I called the flier and was finally passed off to the editor (I think). This is my recollection of our conversation.
I asked him if he knew why I was calling, He said "why don't you tell me".
I said your paper ran a doctored photo of me in relation to a serious article. He returned that the paper often runs satire photos. I said I was familiar with the people V Lary Flint case but this was clearly not a satire piece as was the case with the Calpari add/spoof. It was a news article in what is supposed to be a news paper. The next thing he said was how they weren’t the ones who doctored the photo in the first place. I said that is no difference. They knew it was doctored and ran it with no notice that it was doctored.
I said all that I wanted was the picture taken down from their website or at least clarification, an apology and a retraction with both photos in it (so people could clearly see what was done by their paper).
He did not sound like he liked the idea of it and said he wouldn't agree to anything until he talked to their legal department first. He said he might E mail me a response later.
I guess their legal department let him know what I have been being told for days. The case is pretty cut and dry. If I wanted, I could own the paper when it was all said and done.
Getting paid or a big settlement was never my intent. I have now gotten what I feel is reasonable.